The Thread Formerly Known As: Kerry Found...

[Adron]

Guns are not violent. People are violent. I have never heard of a gun being left completely by itself and hurting anyone.

There we go, something no one can argue against. Adron and Grok (mostly?) have been the ones arguing against guns and how they should be destroyed, when the guns are not the problem. If guns didn't exist, people would still find ways of killing other people, and there would still be deranged maniacs out there who would kill people. Adron(?) said it, guns are not the only means of protecting yourself, which means their not the only way of harming someone, and if we abolished all guns we would still have this problem.

If guns didn't exist, people would still find ways of killing other people, yes. The idea is that without guns they would be less successful, and it would be happening on a smaller scale. Guns are tools for harming people more efficiently.

Obviously, if a gun is left with noone around to hurt, it can't hurt anyone. Maybe you'd like to suggest that we make humankind extinct, so that no more humans will be hurt? I'll still call guns violent because their main operation, the way they are designed to work, is violent; marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity. The firing of a gun has to be a very good example of violent.

Personally, I'd rather be killed by a gun than a knife, freezing to death, drowning, dehydration, being boiled/cooked, eaten by an animal... the list goes on. Guns are probably the easiest way to die, it's fast and efficient, usually little suffering involved.

Many people do survive gunshots. A bullet to the head is probably pretty ok, but I don't think you'd appreciate a bullet in your stomach. I'm not convinced that there's really "usually little suffering involved".

[Adron]

Yet I do not see you conceding any points even when valid.

Nor is my "opposition" if thats what you'd like to call them.

That has more to do with you not bringing up all that many clearly valid points - most all seem to easy to dispute logically.

I'm wanting to listen to both sides and evaluate, but it's hard when you call people moron and idiot for not being swayed by rhetoric, or facts.

It gets frustrating when my "opposition" refuses to accept facts presented from cited sources especially when the credibility of the sources (i.e. The NRA, the FBI, the US Department of Justice) is slandered with no evidence of it whatsoever.

The NRA is a lobbyist organization; such are known to work the numbers to their advantage as much as they can. Results from the FBI or the Department of Justice are not as likely to be constructed, but they have to be read and interpreted in their entirety. I did look at one paper which suggested that they were classifying deaths by gunshot in a way that makes them unusable for arguing for or against guns. Apparently, they combine into the same numbers, people intentionally killed by criminals and accidental or similar shootings that would not have happened if guns were properly locked away (or banned).

[Adron]

Is that so? What do you think protects the borders of your country? What do you think protects your streets? In the United States which has a society completely different from yours, we have them in our homes, and we do just fine.

In the United States, you have them in your homes, and it's costing you dearly. In my country, the people who need them have them, and they're using them well.

Millions of lives are saved each year because Americans are armed.

Please explain how you reach "Millions of lives".

I have an interesting statistic for you all. Adron likes to have law abiding citizens disarmed. Interestingly enough, so do 99.8% of criminals.

What is the source for the number 99.8%?

And you know what, it does feel good to know that if somebody comes into my home tonight to hurt my family, that they'll be too full of lead to have that chance.

You cannot possibly know that. You are making invalid assumptions, and those color and render your entire argument near worthless.

[Adron]

So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?

Even if they do have a weapon, your life is not really at risk until you pull out your gun. If you hand over your wallet peacefully, you're home free. You are causing the situation you claim that you want to prevent.

And if they approach me armed? I take them down. Less likely that they will take my money then kill me if they have my lead in them isn't it?

More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.

I don't have a fire extinguisher handy.

Thats pretty foolish. You obviously don't prepare for emergencies, so I don't know why I would think you might be logical about protecting yourself.

Most people I know don't have fire extinguishers handy. Fire extinguishers are overrated, and require regular maintenance to be effective. I am well protected without a fire extinguisher.

I do wear a seat belt, because it's convenient and doesn't cause any additional risk.

I sure hope its to save your life. Your car does have air bags does it not? They are risky, but the rewards outweigh the risks don't they?

No, my car doesn't have air bags.

I don't carry a first aid kit.

Its a shame you would not be able to help somebody in need.

Well, since we've been insightful enough to ban guns, the risk of needing that is lessened here.

My point is you prepare for emergencies, which is the same as keeping a gun for the unlikely event of an emergency.

My point is that you prepare for some emergencies. What you do in preparation for emergencies must be reasonable and the cost of doing it must be low enough that it is outweighed by the benefits, which is obviously the case for carrying a spare tire or using a seatbelt but not for carrying a gun.

[Hazard]

So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?

Even if they do have a weapon, your life is not really at risk until you pull out your gun. If you hand over your wallet peacefully, you're home free. You are causing the situation you claim that you want to prevent.

And if they approach me armed? I take them down. Less likely that they will take my money then kill me if they have my lead in them isn't it?

More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.

I'd like to have the chance to save my life rather than let them rob me and kill me anyway. Very likely I would shoot them to kill them if I had to. Highly likely I would take them down. They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed. Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?

I don't have a fire extinguisher handy.

Thats pretty foolish. You obviously don't prepare for emergencies, so I don't know why I would think you might be logical about protecting yourself.

Most people I know don't have fire extinguishers handy. Fire extinguishers are overrated, and require regular maintenance to be effective. I am well protected without a fire extinguisher.

Having a fire extinguisher to put out a small fire say in your trash can can save your property from more costly damage.

I do wear a seat belt, because it's convenient and doesn't cause any additional risk.

I sure hope its to save your life. Your car does have air bags does it not? They are risky, but the rewards outweigh the risks don't they?

No, my car doesn't have air bags.

Wtf?

My point is you prepare for emergencies, which is the same as keeping a gun for the unlikely event of an emergency.

My point is that you prepare for some emergencies. What you do in preparation for emergencies must be reasonable and the cost of doing it must be low enough that it is outweighed by the benefits, which is obviously the case for carrying a spare tire or using a seatbelt but not for carrying a gun.

You must prepare for all emergencies.

[j0k3r]

You must prepare for all emergencies.

Right.

[iago]

"Without a gun, the king of England could march in here right now and boss you around.  Do you want that?  Hey?  Do you?"
"No...."
"All right then.  The gun stays."

-Simpsons.

[Hitmen]

There's a simpsons quote to solve every arguement/problem.

[Adron]

More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.

I'd like to have the chance to save my life rather than let them rob me and kill me anyway. Very likely I would shoot them to kill them if I had to. Highly likely I would take them down.

If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.

They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience?

Most people I know don't have fire extinguishers handy. Fire extinguishers are overrated, and require regular maintenance to be effective. I am well protected without a fire extinguisher.

Having a fire extinguisher to put out a small fire say in your trash can can save your property from more costly damage.

Yes, it can. Just picking up the trash can and throwing it out the window can too. Or not throwing burning/glowing/hot material into the trash can in the first place. In some cases a fire extinguisher could be handy, but in most cases it'll work out fine anyway. Fire extinguishers are overrated.

No, my car doesn't have air bags.

Wtf?

Umm, it doesn't, plain and simple?

[Hitmen]

I'm going to touch the original topic of this thread a little more.



OK, I'm done.

[Hazard]

More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.

I'd like to have the chance to save my life rather than let them rob me and kill me anyway. Very likely I would shoot them to kill them if I had to. Highly likely I would take them down.

If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.

Not true.

They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience?

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.

[Adron]

If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.

Not true.

Not true, why? Apply some logic to the situation and tell me why a robber wants to kill you unless you prove to be troublesome or dangerous?

They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience?

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.

There's no situation that the right logic doesn't apply to. Logic is universal. Why would a robber have any interest in killing you unless it turned out to be necessary for his own safety? Shouldn't you rather call him a murderer if he walks into the encounter, already having decided to kill you?

[Hazard]

If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.

Not true.

Not true, why? Apply some logic to the situation and tell me why a robber wants to kill you unless you prove to be troublesome or dangerous?

Adron you're cursed. By applying logic to illogical situations. You're applying rationale to an irrational being, somebody driven to violent crime. A mentally diseased person may just kill you, for no particular reason. If your attacker is panicky, he might either kill you to keep you from saying anything, or he just goes over the edge.

They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience?

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.

There's no situation that the right logic doesn't apply to. Logic is universal. Why would a robber have any interest in killing you unless it turned out to be necessary for his own safety? Shouldn't you rather call him a murderer if he walks into the encounter, already having decided to kill you?

Logic is not a universal value. An irrational person such as a crazed attacker will not consider logic. What about love? Is love logical? If so, how do you define love, since you know the logic you can define it for me right? If somebody walks into an encounter with the intent to kill then its premeditated murder.

Adron if everything was logical then somebody would have defined the meaning of life and existence by now. Its not as simple as that.

Personally, I'd rather be killed by a gun than a knife, freezing to death, drowning, dehydration, being boiled/cooked, eaten by an animal... the list goes on. Guns are probably the easiest way to die, it's fast and efficient, usually little suffering involved.

Many people do survive gunshots. A bullet to the head is probably pretty ok, but I don't think you'd appreciate a bullet in your stomach. I'm not convinced that there's really "usually little suffering involved".

Precisely why we are trained to fire twice to the chest (center mass) and once to the head. If they aren't dead, they aren't going anywhere.

[Grok]

Yes, love is logical.  If you want proof, I can send you a PDF book "How to make anyone fall in love with you".  The book includes extensive references to research done in the last 20 years proving that love can be created, manufactured, and the subjects be none the wiser.

[Adron]

If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.

Not true.

Not true, why? Apply some logic to the situation and tell me why a robber wants to kill you unless you prove to be troublesome or dangerous?

Adron you're cursed. By applying logic to illogical situations. You're applying rationale to an irrational being, somebody driven to violent crime. A mentally diseased person may just kill you, for no particular reason. If your attacker is panicky, he might either kill you to keep you from saying anything, or he just goes over the edge.

That's still logical. A mentally diseased person may just be able to get a gun because of the free gun availability, then see how much more damage he can do than if guns had been limited. And if your attacker is panicky, it will not get better if he thinks you have a gun that you're about to use on him.

They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience?

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.

There's no situation that the right logic doesn't apply to. Logic is universal. Why would a robber have any interest in killing you unless it turned out to be necessary for his own safety? Shouldn't you rather call him a murderer if he walks into the encounter, already having decided to kill you?

Logic is not a universal value. An irrational person such as a crazed attacker will not consider logic. What about love? Is love logical? If so, how do you define love, since you know the logic you can define it for me right? If somebody walks into an encounter with the intent to kill then its premeditated murder.

Adron if everything was logical then somebody would have defined the meaning of life and existence by now. Its not as simple as that.

Everything is indeed logical. When it seems illogical it's either incorrect or we don't fully understand it. I can't fully define love, but that doesn't mean it's not logical. One logical reason for love is to encourage reproduction in our species.

My logic tells me that our existence has no higher purpose. Logically, with the huge amount of randomness available, eventually some form of intelligent life will appear just out of pure chance.

Precisely why we are trained to fire twice to the chest (center mass) and once to the head. If they aren't dead, they aren't going anywhere.

But which still doesn't mean that you can either A) kill someone you shouldn't have killed (too bad that you were such an efficient killer) or B) fail to kill someone you should've killed, because of stress, bad aim, you getting shot first, etc.